Dr Debra Cureton, University of Wolverhampton
This briefing outlines a creative and generative method of research for exploring degree attainment disparities with students.. The methodological defence for this method is drawn from constructivist models of interviews, particularly Holstein and
Gabrium (1997) who argue that the purpose of interviews is to think with the interviewees in order to extend understandings, to extend ‘possible horizons of meaning’. It also draws on (Pawson and Tilley (1997).who argue that interviewers and interviewees can alternate as teachers and learners throughout the research process. The following stages of what we called the Consensus Oriented Research
Approach (CORA) is adapted from Consensus Oriented Decision Making (Hartnet,
2011) into a five stage process, as described in the following diagram:.
The stages, processes and dynamics of the Conesus Oriented Research Approach
(CORA)
Stage One: Introducing the research problem
Unlike traditional consensus conferencing, where conference attendees are provided with information and materials about the conference topic before the event, we did so at the event. This decision was made because, on an ethical level, we felt that it was unfair to inform students of the disparities in student attainment without providing an immediate opportunity for further information, debate and support.

Without this opportunity we felt that the information could, for some students, prove damaging.
During this stage of the process an ‘expert panel’ informed the conference attendees of the nature of the research problem. Time should be allowed to encourage conference attendees to reflect on the issues presented and to seek further information.
Stage Two – Exploring the research problem
The aim of this stage is to encourage the conference attendees to develop an understanding of all aspects of the research problem and its effects. A number of data collection techniques to generate and record experiences or views are devised,
We designed two ‘fun’ data collection techniques specifically for working with students and with sensitive issues. These are described below.
A further aim of the first two stages of this technique is to create a safe research environment, in which the conference attendees feel comfortable and confident to discuss the research problem. It is important to encourage a sense of trust between the conference attendees and the researchers. Creating trust will also encourage the conference attendees to provide useful and consequential solutions because they believe the panel will take the suggestions seriously. Moreover, without attention to these questions, the conference attendees are unlikely to feel confident and empowered enough to take control of the research environment when it is necessary,in later stages of the approach.
Stage Three – Identify the key areas of the problem
This stage of the approach relates directly to stage three of the Consensus Oriented
Decision Making (Harnett, 2011). The aim of this stage is to encourage the conference attendees to discuss and agree on the key areas of the problem from their perspective. These discussions should be collected as research data. It is also necessary to pay attention to the dynamics of the process, as this is the point at which the conference attendees should be encouraged to take charge of the research space. As the aim of the technique is to generate a full and honest picture of the research problem from the attendee’s perspective, the attendees are now the experts.
Stage Four – Provide solutions
The penultimate stage of the process is to empower the conference attendees through providing them with the space to identify useful solutions to the issues they have identified. The solutions can be encouraged through the research team providing prompts either in the form of questions, areas for consideration or through the completion of specific tasks. In our case we provided the conference attendees with a task to encourage the formulation of solutions. Again this is described below. The conference attendees may wish to develop a number of possible solutions and then decide which of the solutions are the most important to implement. The latter part of this stage can be achieved through voting systems.

Stage Five: Winding up and moving on
The wrapping up stage allows for the research team to sum up the proceedings of the event and set future directions. As this approach encourages conference attendees to participate in, and evaluate, the implementation of the solutions they provide; this time can be used to inform the conference participants how they can be further involved in this. Further engagement in the research process could be encouraged through blogging updates that participant might comment on or through further ‘update events’ where updates of the solution implementations are presented to the conference attendees.
Tools used with this approach
The tools used in this process were carefully designed to encourage the conference attendees to feel safe and confident in the research environment. We hoped to encourage the sense of safety by making their engagement with the research problem a playful affair. It was anticipated that this would reduce the tension that the attendees might experience and promote their engagement with the research problem. The two tools designed were implemented during stages two to four.
These were a twist on the Snakes and Ladders game and a curriculum design exercise. These were aimed specifically at collecting data relating to disparity in student attainment, however, these could be adapted for used for other research questions.
Snakes and ladders – Based on the traditional Snakes and ladders game, the board is separated into three coloured blocks to represent the three years of undergraduate study: squares 1-40 relate to the first year, 41 – 70 relate to the second year and 70- 100 relate to the third year. Snakes related to difficulties the students encountered or issues that held them back in gaining a good degree, while ladders represented aspects of university life that facilitated students in gaining good degrees. Both snakes and ladders ran within and between the year-bands, to provide information about what helps and hinders students’ progression with each year, as well as from year to year. As students played the game, they wrote down the hurdles and facilitators to their progress on post-it notes. These were displayed on the wall for further discussion and eventually for thematic grouping.
Curriculum design exercise
– Students were asked to design a module that either supported high or low achievement. The students were provided with pointers to the areas that they might wish to consider. This exercise encouraged students to build on the issues they identified in the Snakes and Ladders exercise and to formulate solutions.

To summarise, we integrated the philosophy of consensus conferencing, which promotes the voice of lay people and stakeholders in the process of decision making, with naturalistic and interpretive data collection methods. This approach is educative, engaging and empowering (Cureton, Soocoomarne, Adefila, 2011), as we educate the conference attendees about the research problem and as we explore its dimensions with them, attitudinal, experiential and perspective data are generated for the formulation of action.
References
Hartnet, T. (2011). Consensus Oriented Decision Making. New Society Publishers
Holstein J. A and Gubrium, J. F (1997) Active Interviewing 113-129 in Silverman David
(ed) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, Sage, London
Pawson Ray and Tilley Nick (1997) Realistic Evaluation, Sage, London
Soocoomarnee, P., Adefila, A., Cureton, D., & Sekhon, J. (2011). Creating a Safe
Environment for Disparity in Attainment Research to Take Place , Promoting Inclusive
Change: addressing equity and success for BME students in higher education
Conference - Monday 4 July, 2011, University of Greenwich